In a closed door meeting at a high profile address of a leading industrialist, I was called in to assess the reputational damage caused by articles in the media as a result of a crisis. Thronged by people in black suits, everyone, almost unanimously, was of the view that it is the court which will decide the outcome and that is where we need to focus on. The lawyers were right in their contention. After all the narratives outside the court have no bearing on the outcome of the case.

However, there were two fundamental inquiries. First, how did the crisis become a legal dispute?

From the perceptional point of view, a crisis cannot be termed big or small. Most of the times a trivial issue snowballs into a disaster and at times a significant debacle is ignored. Here, traditional media and social media space plays an important role. An immaterial tweet or a comment gets the entire nation to press for changes in the society and a serious charge or a swindle ends up as a footnote in inside pages in a national daily.

In a stressed competitive environment, the twenty four hour news media is lurking around the corner for the slightest hint of controversy. It becomes better and bigger for the media if the crisis or an issues has a direct bearing on the underprivileged class; and catches the fascination if a high profile individual or entity is found to be on the wrong side. What follows next are the kangaroo courts in the media studios, now famously called as ‘Media Trial’.

And abruptly as it becomes, activists in different forms demand intervention, by government and courts. In few cases suomotto actions are taken and you are pacing through the stairs to the courtroom, surrounded by saviors in black suits.

Presumably, while only ten percent of the overall crisis leads to the courtroom, needless to say, any crisis is bereft of choice. Another interesting piece of insight shows that while elaborating on the crisis, media directly or indirectly invokes laws of the land and judicial processes as the most credible means to a resolution. This norm of media nicely sets up any crisis for a legal entangle.

“Yes, we did not represent ourselves fairly in the media, and that is the reason the crisis is blown out of proportions. Unsubstantiated media articles are the reason we are staring at the legal dispute of this nature”, came the reply from the Managing Director sitting at the far end of the long head table, ignoring the panoramic view of Lutyens Delhi from the half curtained glass wall. The legal team was browsing through documents kept on the table next to their laptops and tablets while sipping through the cappuccino and green tea, however unmindful of the otherwise beautiful setting behind the table.

“Can we contain further reputation loss? And we don’t want to infuriate the judges by going to the media while case is going on!” remarked an observant lawyer while showing some noting to the Managing Director.

Communication during trial needs to be handled with the same seriousness and care as any other aspect of the case. Of course you can’t have complete power over media, but you can’t have power over prosecution and judges either. That doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to defend your image.

Just as a lawyer works to avoid the adverse consequences of a possible loss after trial, you may take equitable steps to defend your reputation in the court of public opinion. You may pursue lawful strategies to explain your side of the story; that you do not deserve to be tried.

The media coverage of crisis and legal related issues has risen dramatically. An estimated 1000 news stories are reported by media almost daily on different crisis across the length and breadth of the country. And there has been little training as to how to report on such crisis and legal matters. The courts often frown upon media’s excitement and inane treatment of sub-judice matters. However, majority of times media gets away by citing freedom of expression as an escape route.

While you may not have complete domination over media, doesn’t mean you can’t influence the way your case is presented to the public.

“No Comments – We don’t try our cases in press”. The oft repeated remark from the lawyers can be best termed as an adage of pre information age i.e. way past the age of twenty four hour news media and dynamic social media interfaces. The rules of engagement have changed. You need to be fairly represented in whatever is being written or said about you or your organization. You have spent years and decades to build up a reputation. How can you allow someone to destroy it without putting up a fight? Fairly accepted by one and sundry, keeping quiet is acceptance of guilt. Time to say ‘No’ to no comments.

Managing communication during litigation involves logic and science, and is widely accepted and practiced in developed countries. One must honorably accept that media has a huge impact on a case and will continue to shape up public opinion. One must also honorably accept that engaging the media in the righteous manner is within your right and boosts the overall legal strategy, and more importantly helps you to protect your reputation. “How far we can be in denial Sir”, sipping through my tea I remarked!